TPO Replacement trees

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Agreed about reviewing TPOs however where a tree is in a prominent/significant location if in reviewing the tree fails to met the criteria and the TPO revoked then an important tree could be lost.

 

If the tree is in private ownership than the owner has a duty of care and should rightly manage the tree, thereby if it requires removal under the TPO it can be replaced?!?

 

The antagonism I feel about TPOs is the ambiguity of historic ones which only cover areas and lists in the schedule...'trees of whatever species.....' my frustration comes when I have requests to revoke TPOs that have been sitting with legal for 2+ years along with new TPOs to be served following review ?!?!

 

I follow your logic Roz, and see it being applied quite regularly. But it is exactly that logic which I see as the cause of the problem (in private / domestic ownership.) It's easy to spend someone else's money!

 

Bearing in mind, some may be "community spirited" and happy to carry the financial liability for the "amenity value" enjoyed by the general population but others may be constrained by finance.

 

What incentive is there for a private / domestic owner of a TPO'd tree to do anything other than progressive reductions, as and when necessary, in line with safety obligations / approved applications until the tree is no more than a stick?

 

They don't have to seek permission to fell, only to undertake reasonable and diligent safety work. At some point along that line, the tree will cease to provide the necessary amenity to warrant a TPO.

[benedmonds]

I'm currently awaiting a consent, a delayed consent, where the condition is that two trees are planted, become established and then once this condition is met we can fell the offending tree.

 

I tried to do this for a client recently but failed...

 

They had a young (20 year old) silver birch in their front garden that they had planted.. but very close to the house. The TO liked it and would not give permission to remove. There was as large lawn area in front of the tree where a replacement could have gone that would have been away from the house and in a much more suitable location.

 

I suggested sticking in a replacement now and removing once established but the TO would not or could not give delayed consent. He suggested we could plant another, but would have to reapply to remove the first one in a few years... but there would be no guarantee and there would likely be a different TO. The home owner understandably was not going to risk planting another tree and end up being stuck with 2..

[Gary Prentice]

At some point along that line, the tree will cease to provide the necessary amenity to warrant a TPO.

 

 

Try that argument with 'some' TO's:biggrin:

 

I asked our LA to provide their definition of 'amenity' value last year. After all, it must some important thing, because every refusal I've ever had has been down to 'amenity value'.

 

I thought that knowing what it actually is, I'd have a chance of rebuttal - six months on, I'm still awaiting a response:biggrin:

[Gary Prentice]

I tried to do this for a client recently but failed...

 

They had a young (20 year old) silver birch in their front garden that they had planted.. but very close to the house. The TO liked it and would not give permission to remove. There was as large lawn area in front of the tree where a replacement could have gone that would have been away from the house and in a much more suitable location.

 

I suggested sticking in a replacement now and removing once established but the TO would not or could not give delayed consent. He suggested we could plant another, but would have to reapply to remove the first one in a few years... but there would be no guarantee and there would likely be a different TO. The home owner understandably was not going to risk planting another tree and end up being stuck with 2..

 

I think it's up to the TO/PO whether they agree tbh. In my case, the TO is reasonable and sees the merit in it, but "don't know how planning will deal with it?"

 

I actually wrote the condition myself, so the PO could use it, to try to cover the bases if the existing TO moved on. It's now 3 months since I submitted, but I don't really want to go to PINs on this, if possible - a can of worms best left unopened.

 

 

I very well known Arb Consultant who used to be a TO for a Yorkshire MBC used to say, " It's a poor tree (protected), tell the client to plant an oak (whatever was suitable) and apply next year. I'll consent that as long as something's in to replace it."

 

Always seemed reasonable to me and I trusted him to do what he said.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Try that argument with 'some' TO's:biggrin:

 

I asked our LA to provide their definition of 'amenity' value last year. After all, it must some important thing, because every refusal I've ever had has been down to 'amenity value'.

 

I thought that knowing what it actually is, I'd have a chance of rebuttal - six months on, I'm still awaiting a response:biggrin:

 

 

:lol: try this Gary!! 11 pages, no answer!! :lol:

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/64847-valuation-amenity-trees.html

[Gary Prentice]

Forgot about that thread - I'll re-read it when I get home.

 

I'm assuming the LA have a definition (their own definition), that has been written, even adopted by the council, that Planning Committee members actually consult when considering objections to TPO's?

 

Sorry, I'm a bit peevish today, a client got a TPO saturday (I did warn him) subsequent to a 211 notice I'd served.

 

I wasn't, so came into the office this afternoon to start firing missiles reminding Planning, Legal, Head of the Council and TO's that they have a duty to inform me. Searched the 2012 Regs for the relevant sections and started composing the letter - postman came with my copy of the TPO.

 

With all the recent aggro, I was all fired up to get some knocks back at em too:lol:

[johnharpham]

Try that argument with 'some' TO's:biggrin:

 

I asked our LA to provide their definition of 'amenity' value last year. After all, it must some important thing, because every refusal I've ever had has been down to 'amenity value'.

 

I thought that knowing what it actually is, I'd have a chance of rebuttal - six months on, I'm still awaiting a response:biggrin:

 

I've had this argument before. My understanding of the issue with 'amenity' value is that it isn't definable as its based on one mans opinion, excuse the phrase.

[Chris at eden]

I've had this argument before. My understanding of the issue with 'amenity' value is that it isn't definable as its based on one mans opinion, excuse the phrase.

 

Its the word tree that isn't definable. Amenity is generally meaning visual amenity. There are other considerations such as wildlife value but TPOs cant be served on these reasons alone. This essentially means that the thing looks nice and is visible. Yes ambiguous.

 

Its helped though by the fact that trees should go through an amenity assessment before being protected. e.g. TEMPO. The guidance also says that the council should considered making a TPO if the removal of the tree would have a significant negative impact on the local environment which if you are objective should be pretty easy to consider.